Amanda and John Edwards

More later, but I am delighted to report that Amanda Marcotte, formerly of Mousewords and now of Pandagon, is leaving to become Blogmistress for the John Edwards presidential campaign. Many wonderful and well-known feminist bloggers will be stepping in at Pandagon as Amanda assumes her new duties in North Carolina.

Amanda cites this interesting Kate Michelman interview; Michelman makes the case that Edwards (rather than Hillary Clinton) is the best candidate for the feminist vote. It’s an interesting read.

I’m still on board (if small amounts of money can be considered “on board”) with my boy Dennis Kucinich. But I’m as yet agnostic about the major candidates in the race (Edwards, Obama, Clinton), and might well end up joining the sublime and winsome Ms. Marcotte. I think a John Edwards-Bill Richardson ticket in 2008 would be pretty damn formidable.

More at lunch, baruch hashem, deo volente, if the creek don’t rise, and all that.

0 thoughts on “Amanda and John Edwards

  1. Interesting….

    While I enjoy reading Pandagon from time to time, and think that Amanda does a good job with what she does, I am surprised that Edwards would choose her. She, along with Pam, is abrasive and downright hostile towards certain groups of people (namely Christians).

    It just seems like an odd choice for Edwards and one that could come back and hurt him.

  2. I wasn’t very clear with that comment…

    I really like Amanda’s writing and what she does with Pandagon.

    And I love the fact that someone actually hired a woman for such a position, especially one that is very outspoken about her feminist ideologies.

    But it just doesn’t seem to be a good fit with a politician running in a national election.

    It is more surprising to me than anything.

  3. I actually had the same reaction, dave. I suspect that Edwards knows what he’s doing, and it’s probably a point in his favor that he isn’t playing it safe, but I thought it was a weird, risky thing to do, too.

  4. Amanda’s no fool. I expect her tone to be campaign-appropriate. If there’s an attack on her, it will come from her past work, which Edwards can disown. After all, she’s not in a policy position; blogmistress is a media position, where there is greater leeway.

    Also, taking an outspoken feminist progressive is crazy like a fox. Edwards’ appeal to the heartland and the middle is economic populism, and he’s not right on social issues. In fact, he’s a fairly solid progressive that eschews off-putting language. Amanda’s selection is a dogwhistle that he can be trusted on repro choice without him having to say something that might focus a right-on-social-left-on-wallet voter on the issues where they are not with him. About time Dems learned to dogwhistle and streetfight. Heh.

  5. I completely agree that Amanda is no fool, and I would be shocked to see similar rhetoric on the Edwards blog. I just think that it runs the risk of associating Edwards with some of the abrasive and hostile rhetoric from Pandagon.

    I kind of like this risk (and it definitely is a risk) that Edwards is taking here. But it still is really surprising, as it clearly is not the “safe” move.

  6. Edwards is my front runner right now. I like Obama too, but I live in Chicago, and the Obamania is getting on my nerves. I’ve always liked Edwards and in ’04, I was wishing he was the presidential candidate. :)

  7. I just hope she can keep the “f-bombs” under control because that won’t fly with a lot more people than just the Christians. I hope he has handlers for his Blogmistress. If he tries to restrain her colorful prose she may turn it on him. This will be very interesting to watch.

  8. I hope he has handlers for his Blogmistress.

    I’m sure that Amanda doesn’t need “handlers” to tell her not to use the f-word. Considering that she’s held down a mainstream office job for the whole time she’s been blogging, I’m pretty sure she’s got a lot of experience modifying her tone to be appropriate for the situation. I just think that people are going to sift through her archive and try to associate Edwards with the stuff she’s said. I’m sure that Amanda is more than capable of doing the job, and I think it’s positively moronic (and offensive, but I suspect you know that already) to suggest that she would “turn on” an employer for asking her to do her job correctly.

  9. I am sure, X, Edwards’ people had read Pandagon and knew Amanda’s stuff. And one of the things I respect most about Amanda is that she can write excellent, profanity-free prose for a general audience. She’ll be a terrific asset to Edwards as he works to make the case that he’s the better feminist alternative to Clinton.

  10. Profanity doesn’t bother me. Smearing and libeling innocent people, and then making lame efforts to cover one’s tracks, does.

  11. “Profanity doesn’t bother me. Smearing and libeling innocent people, and then making lame efforts to cover one’s tracks, does.”

    Does it ever occur to you that maybe women are sometimes sensitive to the issue of rape because we get to be burned at the stake in court? I know that if I ever get raped, chances are, my sexual history will be picked through and used against me.

  12. Catty, you don’t know what you are talking about. Rape shield laws make it extremely difficult to bring up the alleged victim’s sexual history, even in cases where it is highly probative of the defendant’s guilt, or lack thereof. Most of our criminal law system revolves around bending over backwards to ensure that only the truly guilty get convicted. Not so with rape, where concerns over the (alleged/alleging) victim’s feelings trump the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

    In any event, no amount of sensitivity to the issue of rape can excuse anyone for falsely accusing someone of rape. Accusing someone of such a heinous crime is libel of the worst form imaginable. How about a little sensitivity about that?

  13. Pingback: Vortex(t) :: Fuck John Edwards.